Ummm...they're not all "arabs", and (as you undoubtedly are aware) the country that we spent most of our money fighting had nothing to do with blowing us up on 911. But that's a whole other Republican scare campaign for a different thread.

Well....all I know is we kept the SOB's (Arab's, terrorists, whatever) pretty busy over there. I hate the lives we lost and those that have been injured over there, but I'd rather have our military dealing with the nut jobs over there on their land then you and I dealing with them over here.

Just remember....when they (terrorists, I know liberals don't like to use that word anymore) started to plan 911, Bill Clinton was the President, not Bush. Did Clinton bomb a baby formula factory? Can't remember.

I'm guessing (yes, a guess) she would not be alive today without the surgery if she had relied on the pain killer option. Did Obama say, "well....it's best to just kill her"....of course not....but, he said it in that compassionate way you guys have.

My wife's grandmother would be alive today if someone had said: "Y'know, that surgery carries great risk at your age, and you might have longer life with another procedure, or with a medical rather than surgical intervention.

Saying that surgery isn't the best intervention for every sickness isn't a bad thing, and it certainly isn't telling people their only option is to die....it's simply good, evidence-based practice. God forbid we use data to make medical decisions.

I am starting to think that we need to ban Condos. Think about it. Community owned property, sounds like Marxism to me.

Whatever, palandri. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to apologize for saying that your ideas, to tax the "rich" to pay for everyone else, that whats good for the collective trumps whats good for the individual, that we should all be cared for by the "system", that all of these are marxist ideals.

Its not me, it's the definition of marxism that you need to attack if you don't like it.

Blowing smoke at me and calling me a fear monger doesn't change that. I'm not saying you're evil, I'm just saying your approach to solving these issues come from a marxist point of view. You're not alone. Our congress if full of people with the same ideas.

The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

My wife's grandmother would be alive today if someone had said: "Y'know, that surgery carries great risk at your age, and you might have longer life with another procedure, or with a medical rather than surgical intervention.

Saying that surgery isn't the best intervention for every sickness isn't a bad thing, and it certainly isn't telling people their only option is to die....it's simply good, evidence-based practice. God forbid we use data to make medical decisions.

But that doesn't sound as scary, of course.

Again....I've said this before....if an insurance exec had said what Obama had said, you would have used that as an example of what is wrong with the evil insurance companies. I actually agree with you that many procedure should be denied....so see....we can agree that not every procedure should be covered by health insurance. My point, there will be rationing of health care under Obama care despite what some people think.

Ummm...they're not all "arabs", and (as you undoubtedly are aware) the country that we spent most of our money fighting had nothing to do with blowing us up on 911. But that's a whole other Republican scare campaign for a different thread.

Actually, you're wrong. The 9/11 terrorists WERE all Arabs. 15 were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.... all Arab League nations. They all spoke arabic and were muslim. And the assumption that Iraq had "nothing to do with blowing us up on 911" has nothing to do with anything at all. It's the same old tired smokescreen... and you never ever miss an opportunity to recant it like a broken record.

The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Saying that surgery isn't the best intervention for every sickness isn't a bad thing, and it certainly isn't telling people their only option is to die....it's simply good, evidence-based practice. God forbid we use data to make medical decisions.

I agree totally. Thats why I want to find a physician who is up to date with the latest research, and maybe ask for a second or third opinion, before I elect whether or not to have that surgery. And I DO NOT want some political appointee in wherevertown making that decision for me, with all of the ideological, political, and budgeting pressures that they will have to contend with at the same time.

The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Actually, you're wrong. The 9/11 terrorists WERE all Arabs. 15 were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.... all Arab League nations. They all spoke arabic and were muslim. And the assumption that Iraq had "nothing to do with blowing us up on 911" has nothing to do with anything at all. It's the same old tired smokescreen... and you never ever miss an opportunity to recant it like a broken record.

We were speaking of the Middle East, when they were referred to as Arabs...not 911. And our dollars and lives are still being spent in the "arab" country of Iraq, so it's still relevant.

...Its not me, it's the definition of marxism that you need to attack if you don't like it....

Micael, you need to start by attacking the root of the problem. It started when I was 2 and placed in a Communal Daycare Center and they forced me to share the toys. That lead me down the road to socialism.

Again....I've said this before....if an insurance exec had said what Obama had said, you would have used that as an example of what is wrong with the evil insurance companies. I actually agree with you that many procedure should be denied....so see....we can agree that not every procedure should be covered by health insurance. My point, there will be rationing of health care under Obama care despite what some people think.

Gonna have to disagree, Clem. If the procedure is available and the protocols have proven that it has a chance for success, then I should decide that with my doctor. My doctor and I decide whether or not the odds are acceptable or not. NOT an insurance agency, or a polical agency. The fact that insurance companies pull that crap pisses me off and I think it should be stopped. I can see them not paying for something not tested in trials, but thats about it.

I pay them to take a risk that they may have to offset or even completely cover my healthcare costs (depending on the plan I choose). I expect them to do just that.

The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

I agree totally. Thats why I want to find a physician who is up to date with the latest research, and maybe ask for a second or third opinion, before I elect whether or not to have that surgery. And I DO NOT want some political appointee in wherevertown making that decision for me, with all of the ideological, political, and budgeting pressures that they will have to contend with at the same time.

As opposed to an insurance executive, who is paid bonuses if they can deny you care. Do political appointees in whatevertown get consulted when folks in Medicare go to their doctors, or when Congressmen do to their doctors?

My doctor and I decides whether or those chances are acceptable or not. NOT an insurance agency, or a polical agency. The fact that insurance companies pull that crap pisses me off and I think it should be stopped. I can see them not paying for something not tested in trials, but thats about it.

I agree....which is why a competitive public option is important. As conservatives always say, competition is good. The market certainly hasn't addressed this problem, and there's no evidence that it ever will or could.

Micael, you need to start by attacking the root of the problem. It started when I was 2 and placed in a Communal Daycare Center and they forced me to share the toys. That lead me down the road to socialism.

You nailed it! It's the daycares!

No, really!

The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

As opposed to an insurance executive, who is paid bonuses if they can deny you care.

Read my response to Clem. I'm opposed to that.

I agree....which is why a competitive public option is important. As conservatives always say, competition is good. The market certainly hasn't addressed this problem, and there's no evidence that it ever will or could.

The government won't "compete", Bujin.... well, rather the private insurers won't be able to compete with the government. Their volume is limited to State wide. The Fed will have massive volume that will drive costs down for the fed, not for the states. Plus, the Fed can just print money when it gets tight.... like it did just recently.

The plan isn't for them to compete, anyway. Read the fine print in the bill. You can "chose your doctor and insurer" at first (as long as they follow guidelines set forth by the new Medical Justices), until something changes, and then you automatically get signed to the 'public' plan.

Plus at first many if not most of the small businesses that are struggling with healthcare for their employees will boot them to the public plan... and not long after, larger companies will follow suit.

It's only a matter of time before we're a single payer system.

The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

Again....I've said this before....if an insurance exec had said what Obama had said, you would have used that as an example of what is wrong with the evil insurance companies. I actually agree with you that many procedure should be denied....so see....we can agree that not every procedure should be covered by health insurance. My point, there will be rationing of health care under Obama care despite what some people think.

And yet, he never said any old people would be put to death. This is the issue he was talking about:

Gonna have to disagree, Clem. If the procedure is available and the protocols have proven that it has a chance for success, then I should decide that with my doctor. My doctor and I decide whether or not the odds are acceptable or not. NOT an insurance agency, or a polical agency. The fact that insurance companies pull that crap pisses me off and I think it should be stopped. I can see them not paying for something not tested in trials, but thats about it.

I pay them to take a risk that they may have to offset or even completely cover my healthcare costs (depending on the plan I choose). I expect them to do just that.

Micael....no problem...we can disagree

And I hate to be repetitive, but here is why I think this way. 3 months ago I go in for my routine annual physical, and my EKG shows something odd....my family doctor suggests a stress test, which I have no problem with. When I call to schedule the test, they tell me it will take 4 hours....I'm a little puzzled....so I investigate and this is a Thallium Stress Test and will cost over $2100. Now, I'm 6'1", 170lbs, 46, exercise 6 to 7 days a week, no history of heart issues in my family (yes, always a first), resting heart rate of 41-43....in other words....pretty darn good health. Well, being that I have an HSA plan (my choice, lower premium), I call my doctor and after discussing it, decide to go see a cardiologist. After a 3rd EKG (grrrrr), the cardiologist says there is no need for this test and that I am just fine. Now...let me also say I had plenty of money in my HSA savings account to pay for the test and told both doctors I would pay for the test if needed. So, was there another option that was less expensive? You bet. I went that route first and if then it was decided I needed the additional test I would have done that. In that case, I feel the insurance company should have paid for it (or at least applied it towards my deductible). But this was an expense that was just not needed. Now, I know why the doctor advised this test....she didn't want to get sued if I had a heart issue several months later....but that's a whole other issue.

I won't go as far as Obama and say doctors are giving tonsilectomies (sp?) when a child has a sore throat, but often procedures/medications are recommended when other options should be tried first. But hey, we can't agree on everything and that's cool.

Micael, you need to start by attacking the root of the problem. It started when I was 2 and placed in a Communal Daycare Center and they forced me to share the toys. That lead me down the road to socialism.

Actually, socialism is when they come to your house, take away all of your cool toys, sell them, and then use the money to buy crappy toys for all the kids on the block.

There is no evidence to support this. It's merely a scary marketing tactic.

Okay...I'll give up on getting you to see this despite the words that came out of Obama's mouth...it's on video tape....there was no "trickery" (a little Bushism there) with the video....he made it clear there would be rationing of health care....but whatever

Okay...I'll give up on getting you to see this despite the words that came out of Obama's mouth...it's on video tape....there was no "trickery" (a little Bushism there) with the video....he made it clear there would be rationing of health care....but whatever

If you could quote those words that address "rationing" or "it's time to die, old ladies", I'll try to see it. But using evidence to make medical decisions doesn't actually say that. Facts are inconvenient, I'll grant you, but no amount of twisting of his words or reading into his statements actually get to what you're proposing. You're simply incorrect on the facts but, as you so eloquently posted....whatever.

I agree....which is why a competitive public option is important. As conservatives always say, competition is good. The market certainly hasn't addressed this problem, and there's no evidence that it ever will or could.

Actually, the public option will have an unfair advantage since providers will likely be mandated to accept it and government has a habit of using reimbursement as a way of pushing policy changes.